perfect storm, page-15

Webzone,

NO miss-information here Webzone, everything I have stated is FACT. One day when QAN gets into serious trouble you may realise that what I am saying is correct.

Re SNAP: You seem to fail to understand that if QAN had of introduced 777's in place of ageing 747's, they would have reduced their fuel bill, FULL STOP.

You also seem to fail to recognise that whatever a/c QAN introduces or buys, they still need to partake in capital expenditure, FULL STOP.

Believe it or not, fuel burn rates are a separate issue to capital expenditure. One talks about fuel usage, the other talks about capital expenditure, FULL STOP.

The maths adds up on an estimated $450m pa saving s on fuel if the 777's were introduced, FULL STOP. No mention of 10% from me by the way.

Yes, we are going around in circles so perhaps we should move on. It is obvious that you and I have vastly different views and that you are quite happy to nit pick comments that you disagree with, yet when you are asked to explain your support for current management, you just conveniently avoid the issue. My whole position re QAN is about the current quality of management performance, and it is quite obvious to all that they have not performed. I am not surprised that you want to avoid this discussion, they must be very hard to justify, the company is in a mess and does not know the way out IMO.

Surfrat.